"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[Ralf11]

Perhaps the only way audiostream can get page views is to troll this site ???

[Ralf11]

"Just because you can't hear the difference—who says my own confirmation bias isn't working?"

[Ralf11]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

That is all he has left as he has banned anyone who does not already agree with them.  It is probably not an accident that Herb has published this piece at audio stream instead of stereophile because JA to his credit would allow an opposing viewpoint.

 

audio fascism ??

[Ralf11]

That article is an amazing condensation of ignorance.  Leaving the strawman argument aside, he cannot get very far without making errors, for example,  meteorologists are not scientists at all - they have an undergraduate degree (sometimes less) and then get certified by the American Meteorological Society then get a job (often on TV) where they give weather forecasts (on TV, it is just based on NWS forecasts with some fun graphics).  He may be "cornfusing" that with Climatologists (who are scientists, with PhDs + a post-doc usually who study mechanisms causing climate, past records, effects, etc.

 

Then there is the mis-description of science... he obviously does not know what an experiment is, and then makes a claim of equivalence that no scientist would make.

 

The FDA "demand(s) illusionist parlor tricks like blind "testing"" of drugs and medical devices.  I wonder how many drugs he is on?
 

 

[Ralf11]

35 minutes ago, Nordkapp said:

Actually I did not know he bans people...haha. Not surprised. Oh well. We all have our views. It's cool. Whatever. It's frikin stereo equipment.....

 

no, for ML it is a livelihood (of sorts)

 

he makes money by having companies place ads on his pontification site 

[Ralf11]

I'm curious - what are the two largest photo forums on the net ??

[Ralf11]

no, quantification is crucial in science

 

and... counting is hardly a cultural fabrication - many animals can count, including some birds

[Ralf11]

No, because Chris uses crowd sourcing of engineers and others, ML doesn't really do that.

[Ralf11]

Jackdaws, crows, and parrots can count to about 6

 

note also the specialty neurons paper (no, PNAS is not peer reviewed - it is a selective club tho...)

 

Pepperberg, I.M. (1999) The Alex studies: Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey Parrots.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Helen M. D. & Andreas N. (2015) Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvid songbird endbrain. PNAS  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1504245112

 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I was pulling your leg.  I've read the neuron paper though not my field of expertise.  

 

Now the Pepperberg paper........when I saw The Alex Studies I thought for a split second it had something to do with SandyK.

 

Crows aren't just counters they are smart too.  

 

Irene Pepperberg has been heavily criticized for poor methodology.  I'm not really in that particular segment of a field so don't know if itis valid.  The GTOs (Girls Together Outrageously) aka female mafia of bird science seem to think it was just a case of old men hatin' on a rising woman star scientist.  Take half of each viewpoint...

 

BTW, birds have very different brain organization than mammals... in mammals the neostriatum is a thin protective membrane, but in birds it is very elaborate, perhaps like a cortex...

 

Corvids (crows, jays, etc.) and parrots are the geniuses of the avian world.

[Ralf11]

Here is a quote from a famous 19th Century scientist that I used to have on my office door:

 

"When you measure, you know... something."

 

- Billy Thompson

[Ralf11]

20 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Except when you measure the wrong and/or irrelevant thing...

 

It's more like the Hawking quote

 

" The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. "

 

 

Lord Kelvin did make a mistake, at least once.

 

Get back to us when you achieve 1% of what he did.

[Ralf11]

neither he nor you understands science

[Ralf11]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1468-0114.t01-1-00156

 

[Ralf11]

interest ... in finding ways of experimenting with different types of ink, paper ---> sumi

[Ralf11]

What if I let 20 people listen to music on 2 different types of equipment (blind, A/B/X) and guess which X is A or B?

 

That is subjective, right?

 

Suppose I then apply statistical analysis to determine the chance they guessed right by chance?  

 

That is objective, right?

[Ralf11]

maybe reichert's column should have been titled "Audio Without Common Sense"

[Ralf11]

I enjoy music by the impression formed by the sound waves hitting my eardrum and thereafter transferred to my brain along with sensory input from your eyes, and preconceptions...

[Ralf11]

Let's get some things straight: 

- space and time are NOT forms of human sensibility

- the mind certainly alters the structure of human experience, but we have other ways to figure out what's happening, has happened, and what will happen

 

I'd ask a couple of my friends with PhDs in philosophy for more of the cant, but they are too busy doing secretarial work...

[Ralf11]

Don't be too hard on a guy from the mid-1700s.   The real question is why anyone would care today (except historians).

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, drbobb said:

Yup!

That's Karl Rove's tactic #3. See here, Tactic #3, page 5.

 

Didn't Rove steal that from Lenin?

[Ralf11]

17 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

...

Ultimately, all I am saying is that

...

3. Science or scientific investigations through the application of the scientific method can & do use observational/anecdotal tests & can garner valid results in predictive experiences.

 

 

your #3 is problematic

 

Science involves experimentation, which means there is a manipulation and a control.

 

mere observations or anecdotal reports may be of interest to a scientist, but only to form a working hypothesis, which will then be tested by experiments

 

Your other claims are also a concern, particularly the reliance on 'experience." (Rimbaud notwithstanding).   Confirmation bias, viewing pictures, smells and etc. ec. will ALL affect aural impressions in the brain.  There are numerous experiments showing this; it not just an idea.

 

Thus, to determine the SQ of something, you will need a control and a statistically valid sample (to ensure someone did not identify one item simple by guessing correctly).

 

An exception would be if there were a huge difference in SQ, such as comparing GUTBS' boombox with an audiophile system.

* An exception to that exception would be if fas42 carefully tuned up GUTBS' boombox so well it sounded like an audiophile system...

 

people can, of course, buy whatever they want for whatever reason they want: ergonomics, style, convenience, or a hyposexual desire for really phaat cables

 

[Ralf11]

yes, the hole is greater than the sum of its parts

[Ralf11]

"wonder how a journalistic publication allowed it go out in their name."

 

I agree with your post except the above.  It was posted on Audiostream, which is not journalistic and not a publication.

[Ralf11]

I guess I'll go with humorous observation, rather than joke...